3 ms·

> So there is a "precision maximalist" and "gear maximalist" default to most contemporary photography. Use the sharpest, fastest, least quirky lens you can get,

by tomc1985 5y ago

> So there is a "precision maximalist" and "gear maximalist" default to most contemporary photography. Use the sharpest, fastest, least quirky lens you can get, shoot at the highest resolution, buy the latest if you can. I wouldn't conflate "buy the latest you can" with gear maximalism. My own journey with that started with dissatisfaction of the quality of the output that I had, and, as I became a better photographer, running up against the limits of my camera and lens. Then, after understanding what I was experiencing was indeed the hardware and not a limitation of my skill, I upgraded, and the hardware leapfrogged my abilities. Then I got better and I once again started hitting the limits of my hardware. Though I am now at a point where the hardware and my abilities are so good that I am content with the output as one can reasonably expect for a hardcore amateur. My point is that "gear maximalism" is not always just mere materialism. As for the phone, it's convenient. I can guss it up and if the output is sufficiently pig-like I can put lipstick on it til it looks good enough. With the right software I can even output RAW files and theoretically feed them into Lightroom like my normal workflow. But it will never be as good, and there are so many techniques that I simply can't do with it. "The best camera is the one in your hand" is true and all, but it's flooding the world with shit photos. Good is the enemy of great, after all.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> there are so many techniques that I simply can't do with it. But that's the point of what I'm getting at, concerning limitations and maximalism. We've got into a mindset where we seek to push the edges of the kit we have -- we are urged to shoot faster lenses, shallower depth of field, lower and lower light. But it doesn't get you a higher rate of good photos. A good photo is a good photo regardless of kit, and it's possible to flounder creatively when you have more scope. As a photographer I think we should be able to creatively progress with whatever photographic tool we have in our hands. See a creative angle, refine it, improve on it, etc. Finding a way to be creative within a set of limitations is all that matters, and therefore starting with a serious set of restrictions is good practice. FWIW I am a fairly good portraitist, a long-standing small-venue gig photographer, and I'm pretty technically-minded. But thinking back to the first DSLR I owned (a secondhand Fuji S2 Pro), I can think of precisely one photographic limitation I'd run into regularly even now: its high ISO performance was not that good. Otherwise I'd have that camera back to shoot with, even now, especially in the studio. Though I might rage at the maximum card capacity. I'm regularly surprised to hear people talking of hitting the photographic limits of the kit they use; it suggests to me very specific niches or unusually rubbish kit lenses (I've owned one of those, and even then I got some results I liked). Because I can't think of a popular DSLR made after about 2005 that is bad; certainly not after 2008. I can think of only a couple of entry-level DSLR or mirrorless cameras with limitations that would trouble me (the lack of a depth of field preview being the main one, aside from glasses-unfriendly viewfinders). I still shoot with digital kit I bought 13 years ago, and got some of my best results in the last few years with the oldest of those cameras that is now so cheap I'm better off not selling it. I've only bought secondhand, old-model equipment since 2011. I probably won't ever buy new again -- except maybe a Cambo Actus. The same is true of lenses. I'm currently doing a bit of work with an early 1980s Vivitar wide-to-standard zoom that cost me £30. Crap in the corners, gorgeous otherwise. I don't plan to buy a new lens ever again. I'd always recommend going back to your former kit (buy it again, cheap on eBay) and testing those beliefs about limits in retrospect.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  I still have that older equipment. (In fact, I even bought the updated model, and gave the original to a friend. She knows full well the kinds of pictures that setup has taken and it motivates her to improve) It's lighter, it's what I built my reputation on, and frankly the (later) investment in lenses and such for that platform wasn't cheap. In fact I'm very proud of how much attention I've gotten (which isn't that much, by influencer standards) with just a Costco kit lens and body. > But it doesn't get you a higher rate of good photos. Beg to differ here, if one knows what they're doing. I do a lot of low-light, event photography, among other stuff, and the fancy expensive kit is just flat-out way better. I've shot thousands of these photos with both by now, and the extra technical flexibility is totally worth it. Hell, the extra sensor size and autofocus alone took me to a whole new level. Do you know how much it sucks trying to do low-light with manual focus at a DJ performance because your autofocus can't keep up? How much time do you want to spend twiddling noise reduction controls because the entry-level kit's ISO 1600 looks like crap? How much shadow detail are you willing to sacrifice? It's such a pain in the ass. And through all that I like to take a few shots with my phone for the instant social media gratification... and those shots are never anywhere near as good. The color is flatter, depth of field is blah, everything is just...meh. They look good on instagram, but that's about it. > I can think of precisely one photographic limitation I'd run into regularly even now: its high ISO performance was not that good. Otherwise I'd have that camera back to shoot with, even now, especially in the studio. Though I might rage at the maximum card capacity. Growing up I messed around with 35mm and even had a SLR camera for a short while. But I got serious with my first DSLR (a Nikon D3100). Maybe I was wrong in expecting something comparable to my old 35mm stuff but the dynamic range sucked, high ISO sucked (1600 is grainy AF), autofocus with like 12 points with only one cross-type sensor sucked, and no matter how good I focused the image (even on a nice 35mm prime) I couldn't get the razor sharpness I was after. There was something about how that sensor processed certain light transitions that had a really nice quality, and the camera took a lot of hits, but ultimately I felt like I was hitting a plateau. One example: I like to do long-exposure shots of firedancers doing their thing. Depending on the fuel type the dancer uses there could be a lot of dynamic range to deal with, and most of the other photographers in this space seem to struggle in coping with it: either the dancer is exposed nicely but the flame is blown out, or the flame is exposed nicely but the dancer is super dark (losing a lot of color detail if you try and fix it in post). Or they just try to squash both together and the picture looks like a bad HDR merge. Here is another place where the sensor and lens matters a ton and both my phone and my DX kit struggle. Can I do and have I done these shots on that kit? Sure. But the nice camera, with its amazing sensor, and the amazing lenses I have for it, are able to capture way more detail, and as a result I get way better results straight-away and spend way less time in post trying to fix things.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

> there are so many techniques that I simply can't do with it. But that's the point of what I'm getting at, concerning limitations and maximalism. We've got into a mindset where we seek to push the edges of the kit we have -- we are urged to shoot faster lenses, shallower depth of field, lower and lower light. But it doesn't get you a higher rate of good photos. A good photo is a good photo regardless of kit, and it's possible to flounder creatively when you have more scope. As a photographer I think we should be able to creatively progress with whatever photographic tool we have in our hands. See a creative angle, refine it, improve on it, etc. Finding a way to be creative within a set of limitations is all that matters, and therefore starting with a serious set of restrictions is good practice. FWIW I am a fairly good portraitist, a long-standing small-venue gig photographer, and I'm pretty technically-minded. But thinking back to the first DSLR I owned (a secondhand Fuji S2 Pro), I can think of precisely one photographic limitation I'd run into regularly even now: its high ISO performance was not that good. Otherwise I'd have that camera back to shoot with, even now, especially in the studio. Though I might rage at the maximum card capacity. I'm regularly surprised to hear people talking of hitting the photographic limits of the kit they use; it suggests to me very specific niches or unusually rubbish kit lenses (I've owned one of those, and even then I got some results I liked). Because I can't think of a popular DSLR made after about 2005 that is bad; certainly not after 2008. I can think of only a couple of entry-level DSLR or mirrorless cameras with limitations that would trouble me (the lack of a depth of field preview being the main one, aside from glasses-unfriendly viewfinders). I still shoot with digital kit I bought 13 years ago, and got some of my best results in the last few years with the oldest of those cameras that is now so cheap I'm better off not selling it. I've only bought secondhand, old-model equipment since 2011. I probably won't ever buy new again -- except maybe a Cambo Actus. The same is true of lenses. I'm currently doing a bit of work with an early 1980s Vivitar wide-to-standard zoom that cost me £30. Crap in the corners, gorgeous otherwise. I don't plan to buy a new lens ever again. I'd always recommend going back to your former kit (buy it again, cheap on eBay) and testing those beliefs about limits in retrospect.

tomc1985 5y ago
I still have that older equipment. (In fact, I even bought the updated model, and gave the original to a friend. She knows full well the kinds of pictures that setup has taken and it motivates her to improve) It's lighter, it's what I built my reputation on, and frankly the (later) investment in lenses and such for that platform wasn't cheap. In fact I'm very proud of how much attention I've gotten (which isn't that much, by influencer standards) with just a Costco kit lens and body. > But it doesn't get you a higher rate of good photos. Beg to differ here, if one knows what they're doing. I do a lot of low-light, event photography, among other stuff, and the fancy expensive kit is just flat-out way better. I've shot thousands of these photos with both by now, and the extra technical flexibility is totally worth it. Hell, the extra sensor size and autofocus alone took me to a whole new level. Do you know how much it sucks trying to do low-light with manual focus at a DJ performance because your autofocus can't keep up? How much time do you want to spend twiddling noise reduction controls because the entry-level kit's ISO 1600 looks like crap? How much shadow detail are you willing to sacrifice? It's such a pain in the ass. And through all that I like to take a few shots with my phone for the instant social media gratification... and those shots are never anywhere near as good. The color is flatter, depth of field is blah, everything is just...meh. They look good on instagram, but that's about it. > I can think of precisely one photographic limitation I'd run into regularly even now: its high ISO performance was not that good. Otherwise I'd have that camera back to shoot with, even now, especially in the studio. Though I might rage at the maximum card capacity. Growing up I messed around with 35mm and even had a SLR camera for a short while. But I got serious with my first DSLR (a Nikon D3100). Maybe I was wrong in expecting something comparable to my old 35mm stuff but the dynamic range sucked, high ISO sucked (1600 is grainy AF), autofocus with like 12 points with only one cross-type sensor sucked, and no matter how good I focused the image (even on a nice 35mm prime) I couldn't get the razor sharpness I was after. There was something about how that sensor processed certain light transitions that had a really nice quality, and the camera took a lot of hits, but ultimately I felt like I was hitting a plateau. One example: I like to do long-exposure shots of firedancers doing their thing. Depending on the fuel type the dancer uses there could be a lot of dynamic range to deal with, and most of the other photographers in this space seem to struggle in coping with it: either the dancer is exposed nicely but the flame is blown out, or the flame is exposed nicely but the dancer is super dark (losing a lot of color detail if you try and fix it in post). Or they just try to squash both together and the picture looks like a bad HDR merge. Here is another place where the sensor and lens matters a ton and both my phone and my DX kit struggle. Can I do and have I done these shots on that kit? Sure. But the nice camera, with its amazing sensor, and the amazing lenses I have for it, are able to capture way more detail, and as a result I get way better results straight-away and spend way less time in post trying to fix things.